• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Corporate Personhood

Should Corproations have "personhood" rights?

  • Yes, corporations are just like a person

    Votes: 6 9.4%

  • No, corporations are not just like a person

    Votes: 58 90.6%
  • Total voters
    64
NoJingoLingo said:
You're wrong, it said that the corporation can use its money, not the money of the people who work there but corporate funds.
Click to expand...

I thought corporations weren't persons and can't speak - how can a corporation use anything? It's the PEOPLE using the corporation's money to speak.
 
NoJingoLingo said:
you said corporations aren't people and can't speak
Click to expand...

I didn't say that - I was repeating the argument of others.

yet the SCOTUS gives corporations free speech. So who's wrong, you or the SCOTUS?
Click to expand...

The SCOTUS said people can use corporate money to engage in speech. Happy now?
 
NoJingoLingo said:
Oh, so the guy in the mail room can just make a withdrawal from the corporate bank account because it's his money. Nice try... well, not really even that good.
Click to expand...

I didn't mean that.

I meant that corporate funds are the funds of those who control them. Although they are also, albeit not directly accessible, the funds of its employees.

I would assume that those funds are to be used to maintain and improve the company, as such would be in the best interests of the members, investors and employees of the company (in most cases).

If part of that maintenance and improvement involves supporting political candidates who advocate policies which (in the mind of the corporate entities involved) will improve the environment which the company exists in, then it seems only reasonable that the persons who control the company funds would assign some of those funds to such a purpose.

Such activities would be in the best interests of:
  • The persons who control the funds of the corporation, because they want their company to prosper, as that will both reflect well on them and (probably) increase their salary/bonus.
  • Those persons who have invested in the company and/or own the company, because it will increase the value of their investment and/or company.
  • Those persons who work for the company, in whatever capacity, because it will provide opportunity for advancement in the company (through expansion of the company), and/or increased pay/salary (for the same reason).
 
pugetsoundwa said:
All this does is prove the Repubs fools. They crow if its not in the Constitution it has no rights( abortion, health care and such) yet are willing to give a Corp equal footing with a human. Hypocritical of them.
Click to expand...

Is it?

Corporations represent the people who own them.

The people who own them are protected under the First Amendment, ergo, the corporations cannot be denied Freedom of Speech, because to deny corporations that freedom is to deny the living people who own them that freedom.

It's not hard, it's not confusing. It's freedom.
 
misterman said:
The SCOTUS said people can use corporate money to engage in speech. Happy now?
Click to expand...


Nope if say..Bill Gates wants to vioce his opinion then fine, let him as Bill Gates the man not as Microsoft...just a example..
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Is it?

Corporations represent the people who own them.

The people who own them are protected under the First Amendment, ergo, the corporations cannot be denied Freedom of Speech, because to deny corporations that freedom is to deny the living people who own them that freedom.

It's not hard, it's not confusing. It's freedom.
Click to expand...

A corporation is an institution that is granted a charter recognizing it as a separate legal entity having its own rights, privileges, and liabilities distinct from those of its members.

Thus it doesn't represent the people who owns them as a person but only represents their business.
 
misterman said:
I thought corporations weren't persons and can't speak - how can a corporation use anything? It's the PEOPLE using the corporation's money to speak.
Click to expand...
You need to decide if corporations are deserving of personhood or not. If so then corporate actions are those of the corporation and the employees/owners/shareholders are shielded from the actions of the corporation.
If however you conclude that corporations are not deserving of personhood then actions taken by them are those of the party/parties responsible for the corporations decisions. The guy in the mail room doesn't get to decide where and how corporate funds are used. So which is it?

And let's not be disingenuous anymore about the "people" who work at these corporations. Only certain of a corporations executives and share holders (in a public company) decide how and where corporate funds are dispersed.
 
The Mark said:
I didn't mean that.

I meant that corporate funds are the funds of those who control them. Although they are also, albeit not directly accessible, the funds of its employees.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry but your premise about the corporate funds is plainly wrong. You did give it an effort though. They are not directly nor indirectly accessible by all of the corporations employees. I'm sorry that you are wrong but you are.

I would assume that those funds are to be used to maintain and improve the company, as such would be in the best interests of the members, investors and employees of the company (in most cases).
Click to expand...
And it would be reasonable to assume as much.

If part of that maintenance and improvement involves supporting political candidates who advocate policies which (in the mind of the corporate entities involved) will improve the environment which the company exists in, then it seems only reasonable that the persons who control the company funds would assign some of those funds to such a purpose.

Such activities would be in the best interests of:
  • The persons who control the funds of the corporation, because they want their company to prosper, as that will both reflect well on them and (probably) increase their salary/bonus.
  • Those persons who have invested in the company and/or own the company, because it will increase the value of their investment and/or company.
  • Those persons who work for the company, in whatever capacity, because it will provide opportunity for advancement in the company (through expansion of the company), and/or increased pay/salary (for the same reason).
Click to expand...
OK, now the question is: Who does the economy serve? The People or Corporations? Do we simply allow corporations to do anything they want to improve their profitability regardless of the damage it might do to "The People" either directly (i.e. poisoning a community's water supply) or indirectly (i.e. causing banking failures)?
Obviously we do not just simply allow corporations "to get away with" damages but only if caught. We rarely do anything proactively to PREVENT corporations from doing damage. This is because the corporate lobby controls our legislature. We only attempt to fix damages by legislative fingers in the dam. Those fingers are of course directed by corporate interest and in all cases that I am aware of, end up opening other doors or the "fixes" are short lived and overturned or "refixed" to open a door by the congress at some later point when less people are scrutinizing.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Is it?

Corporations represent the people who own them.

The people who own them are protected under the First Amendment, ergo, the corporations cannot be denied Freedom of Speech, because to deny corporations that freedom is to deny the living people who own them that freedom.

It's not hard, it's not confusing. It's freedom.
Click to expand...
The key word is the owners.
Why even bother with the Corporations having free speech if as you note, the people who own them already have their right protected? What you are exposing is that the owners, who already have their rights protected, should be allowed to use their company as another vehicle for free speech. Do I understand you correctly?
 
NoJingoLingo said:
You need to decide if corporations are deserving of personhood or not.
Click to expand...

No I don't.

If so then corporate actions are those of the corporation and the employees/owners/shareholders are shielded from the actions of the corporation.
If however you conclude that corporations are not deserving of personhood then actions taken by them are those of the party/parties responsible for the corporations decisions. The guy in the mail room doesn't get to decide where and how corporate funds are used. So which is it?
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter one bit when it comes to freedom of speech. The first amendment protects speech, regardless of its source.

And let's not be disingenuous anymore about the "people" who work at these corporations. Only certain of a corporations executives and share holders (in a public company) decide how and where corporate funds are dispersed.
Click to expand...

Yeah, those people. They are people.
 
misterman said:
No I don't.



Doesn't matter one bit when it comes to freedom of speech. The first amendment protects speech, regardless of its source.



Yeah, those people. They are people.
Click to expand...

Corporations are NOT people; therefore, THEY HAVE NO RIGHTS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.

Only the confused diziens on the right think otherwise.
 
Last edited:
Vader said:
Corporations are NOT people; therefore, THEY HAVE NO RIGHTS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.
Click to expand...

Wrong again.

I can find non-persons that have rights under the Constitution - even in the First Amendment.

And corporations clearly have other Constitutional rights, this is not in dispute.

And the Constitution protects speech, regardless of its source.

You don't know what you're talking about.
 
misterman said:
Wrong again.

I can find non-persons that have rights under the Constitution - even in the First Amendment. And corporations clearly have other Constitutional rights, this is not in dispute.

You don't know what you're talking about.
Click to expand...

No, it is YOU who are confused.
 
Vader said:
No, it is YOU who are confused.
Click to expand...

Clearly not.

So if only people have constitutional rights, does that mean:

- political parties have no right to free speech?

- religious groups like churches (the organizations, not the buildings) have no right to religious freedom?

- the government could legally seize, without compensation, all of a corporation's property any time it wants?

Please answer.
 
misterman said:
Clearly not.

So if only people have constitutional rights, does that mean:

- political parties have no right to free speech?

- religious groups like churches (the organizations, not the buildings) have no right to religious freedom?

- the government could legally seize, without compensation, all of a corporation's property any time it wants?

Please answer.
Click to expand...

The rights are for people... as individuals... NOT political parties, not corporations.

Religious freedom is not being discussed here. Quit trying to side-step the point.

The constitution was designed to protect the individual American citizen from government persuction. It was not intended to protect big business and political groups from the consequcnes of their personal attacks.

The right has always had difficulty accepting the fact that their big business friends are only protected as individuals. The right cannot accept that their businesses are NOT entitled to 1st Amendment protections outside of that which is provided to each individual employee.

Of course, anytime the right cannot buy off a politican or create a law that favors them and their SIGs, the right gets bitchy and whiney.
 
Vader said:
The rights are for people... as individuals... NOT political parties, not corporations.
Click to expand...

Ah, so political parties have no constitutional rights, including freedom of speech.

Whatever you say! :rofl

Religious freedom is not being discussed here. Quit trying to side-step the point.
Click to expand...

Religious freedom isn't a constitutional right that the people, among perhaps others, have?

Whatever you say! :rofl

The right has always had difficulty accepting the fact that their big business friends are only protected as individuals. The right cannot accept that their businesses are NOT entitled to 1st Amendment protections outside of that which is provided to each individual employee.
Click to expand...

Over a hundred years of court cases say you're wrong, but hey, you're getting used to that.

Of course, anytime the right cannot buy off a politican or create a law that favors them and their SIGs, the right gets bitchy and whiney.
Click to expand...

I'm not the right. I'm from the left of the aisle.
 
misterman said:
Ah, so political parties have no constitutional rights, including freedom of speech.

Whatever you say! :rofl
Click to expand...

The individuals have those rights. Corporations as a group do not. Accept it and move on.

misterman said:
Religious freedom isn't a constitutional right that the people, among perhaps others, have?
Click to expand...

Actually, what I said was "Where not discussing religious freedom" ... but you can spin it any way you want.

misterman said:
I'm not the right. I'm from the left of the aisle.
Click to expand...

Then quit acting like a riche-wing dinzien. The right is wrong on this issue and so are you.
 
Vader said:
The individuals have those rights. Corporations as a group do not. Accept it and move on.
Click to expand...

Hey, you're the one who talked yourself into saying political parties have no freedom of speech. Don't blame me.

Actually, what I said was "Where not discussing religious freedom" ... but you can spin it any way you want.
Click to expand...

Yes, we were discussing religious freedom. You said only people have constitutional rights, and religious freedom is a constitutional right. That means religious groups like churches have no religious freedom, according to you.

Then quit acting like a riche-wing dinzien. The right is wrong on this issue and so are you.
Click to expand...

It's too bad you can't learn something from this instead of just digging your heels in no matter how preposterous it makes you.
 
misterman said:
Hey, you're the one who talked yourself into saying political parties have no freedom of speech. Don't blame me.
Click to expand...

I am just following the designed purpose of the Constitution as our forefathers intended.

misterman said:
Yes, we were discussing religious freedom. You said only people have constitutional rights, and religious freedom is a constitutional right. That means religious groups like churches have no religious freedom, according to you.
Click to expand...

No, WE are not. YOU are ... in a rather poor attempt at side-stepping the conversation.

misterman said:
It's too bad you can't learn something from this instead of just digging your heels in no matter how preposterous it makes you.
Click to expand...

I am merely arguing the Constitution as it was written. You are arguing it as the politicos WISH it was written.
 
misterman said:
No I don't.
Click to expand...
OK, you're on the right track then. :applaud

Doesn't matter one bit when it comes to freedom of speech. The first amendment protects speech, regardless of its source.
Click to expand...
The only things that can speak are people. Don't bother trying to be cute and telling us your pooch can "speak".

Yeah, those people. They are people.
Click to expand...
Yeah, those people. They are people but they are not all the people who work there. So one could say, that the corporations executives/shareholders get to speak for the employees who may not agree. They are after all, speaking through the use of corporate funds which most employees do not have access to. So in two instances the some of the people are at a disadvantage in their free speech in comparison to the owner.
 
misterman said:
I can find non-persons that have rights under the Constitution - even in the First Amendment.
Click to expand...
Yes you can find 2 others because they are specifically listed and corporations are not. To the intellectually honest this should prove that no other entities were considered to have these rights protected because they don't have them automatically as "people" do.
Religion doesn't have any "inalienable rights" therefore the Constitution specifically protects them by name. Same with the Press.

And corporations clearly have other Constitutional rights, this is not in dispute.
Click to expand...
That's true. The dispute is whether or not they should have them.

And the Constitution protects speech, regardless of its source.
Click to expand...
You have a lack of evidence as your evidence.
 
Vader said:
The rights are for people... as individuals... NOT political parties, not corporations.

Religious freedom is not being discussed here. Quit trying to side-step the point.

The constitution was designed to protect the individual American citizen from government persuction. It was not intended to protect big business and political groups from the consequcnes of their personal attacks.

The right has always had difficulty accepting the fact that their big business friends are only protected as individuals. The right cannot accept that their businesses are NOT entitled to 1st Amendment protections outside of that which is provided to each individual employee.

Of course, anytime the right cannot buy off a politican or create a law that favors them and their SIGs, the right gets bitchy and whiney.
Click to expand...

Actually I think misterman is a lefty, he's just confused on this point about the constitution.
 
Vader said:
I am just following the designed purpose of the Constitution as our forefathers intended.
Click to expand...

If you think so. Not a single judge does.

No, WE are not. YOU are ... in a rather poor attempt at side-stepping the conversation.
Click to expand...

No I"m not. I couldn't be more on topic. I'm talking about the First Amendment.

I am merely arguing the Constitution as it was written. You are arguing it as the politicos WISH it was written.
Click to expand...

Your views don't even reflect a strictly literal interpretation of the words as written.
 
NoJingoLingo said:
I'm sorry but your premise about the corporate funds is plainly wrong. You did give it an effort though. They are not directly nor indirectly accessible by all of the corporations employees. I'm sorry that you are wrong but you are.
Click to expand...
But I’m not wrong.
Employees of a corporation do have indirect access to corporation funds...via their paycheck, at the very least.
They do not control those funds, except through how they do their jobs, which affects the company to a degree, depending on its size.

NoJingoLingo said:
And it would be reasonable to assume as much.
Click to expand...
Excellent, we agree on that at least.

NoJingoLingo said:
OK, now the question is: Who does the economy serve? The People or Corporations?
Click to expand...
Both, as they are one and the same.

NoJingoLingo said:
Do we simply allow corporations to do anything they want to improve their profitability regardless of the damage it might do to "The People" either directly (i.e. poisoning a community's water supply) or indirectly (i.e. causing banking failures)?
Click to expand...
Obviously, some actions a corporation makes can cause harm to individuals or communities. Additionally obvious is that those actions can be attributed to individuals working for said corporation. Our laws against such need reinforcement in some places, and perhaps rewriting (i.e. legislation) in others. And such laws need to be strictly enforced. Consequences need to be known and harsh, to discourage corporations from doing such.
NoJingoLingo said:
Obviously we do not just simply allow corporations "to get away with" damages but only if caught. We rarely do anything proactively to PREVENT corporations from doing damage. This is because the corporate lobby controls our legislature. We only attempt to fix damages by legislative fingers in the dam. Those fingers are of course directed by corporate interest and in all cases that I am aware of, end up opening other doors or the "fixes" are short lived and overturned or "refixed" to open a door by the congress at some later point when less people are scrutinizing.
Click to expand...
This is not a problem of corporations. This is a problem of politicians.

Sure, corporations might be influencing politicians to an extent, and in some cases, a great extent. Their constituents need to fire them, if necessary.

But corporate influence of politicians is simply a extension of individual influence, namely by those who control said corporation.

To take away the use of their funds is to take away part of their free speech.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom